@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration I agree! But you're pointing out to one of the pros/cons of the fediverse. Restricting followers-only to not have a +1 is a client limitation, something that could be avoided with a custom client.

Repeat after me: "Federation makes everything harder"

@scottjenson Right, but could the message get rejected by the server when it sees a "followers only" visibility, and the recipient is not a follower?

Almost like a quick, temporary auto-block of that person.

@evana @mastodonmigration

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration yes, if this is a server feature and not a client one, then my concern goes away.

But I can 100% guarantee you that there is a small group of people that do this for very positive and supportive reasons that will be quite miffed if we do this (which just might be necessary!)

This is why I'm trying to find other ways of looking at this problem. I want to solve it! Just trying to find the right lever.

@scottjenson It just sounds like we might need to turn the conversation around and instead of asking how to mitigate this feature's potential for abuse, a better question might be, why is this useful?

If to limit a posts visibility, maybe using "quiet public" is a better option?

@evana @mastodonmigration

@scottjenson

Just trying to imagine this playing out IRL. Someone pulls me to the side to talk to me, surrounds me with their buddies. Now, they might all be very nice people. But this situation just sounds inherently threatening.

@evana @mastodonmigration

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration These are indeed the harder questions to ask! I'm glad you're asking them

@scottjenson

So the needs or desires of that small group of people who's getting miffed has higher priority than people receiving harm and threats?

@stefan @evana @mastodonmigration

@tomjennings @stefan @evana @mastodonmigration

Of course not. I'm just saying I open source software has these arguments all the time and we need to be respectful of others

@tomjennings @scottjenson @stefan @evana

Tom, don't think that was what Scott was saying. This is a brainstorming session. As such, all aspects of the matter are being put on the table. The first step is to identify the problem in all it's complexities. It's a long way from making any kind of priority calls or implementation decisions. Feel like it is important to assume everyone has good intentions to constructively address the issue at this point.

@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan

> they likely do other things that get them banned

not necessarily? think of a messaging app that supports group messages. you create a group chat with your buddies and one other person. the person being added can:

- not accept the invite
- remove themselves from the group
- block people in the group
- report messages in the group

in the last scenario, mods do not have full context. the user has to attach any relevant context.

@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan but because there is a private aspect, you would be free to act differently than you would otherwise act in public, and your only avenue for consequences would be *if* the added person reports y'all.

so the gap here is that people aren't being made aware that they can/should report such harassment. i don't think doing away with private posts solves anything.

one thing that could be done is to filter followers-only like mentioned-only, but...

@scottjenson @evana @mastodonmigration @stefan ...such a change might be unexpected if not communicated appropriately ahead-of-time. in effect, it would collapse the "public"/"followers"/"direct" into just "public"/"not public".

you'd probably also want the filter to be a bit smarter about what counts as "unsolicited", because even public mentions can be "unsolicited".

and of course i'd be remiss to leave out my usual advocacy for allowing people to create explicit contexts which they control!

@stefan @mastodonmigration @scottjenson @mekkaokereke

One option to prevent hidden abusive pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.

I wrote a thread elaborating on this argument.

Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)

🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)

The Union Place (union.place)

@ricci @juergen_hubert @ainmosni @IveyJanette

This one is not on the "global south invisibility" problem, but I wrote a short thread suggesting that an option to prevent hidden abusive racist pile-on in the replies would be to allow only new posts to select a "privacy level". Every single reply in a thread or sub-thread should mandatorily inherit the "privacy level" of the parent post.

In case you are interested:

Feral Thoughts (@feralthoughts@union.place)

🧵arguing that we should do away with “privacy level” options for reply posts (in case of Mastodon and Mastodon-like Fediverse platforms which follow that model), to eliminate the ability of racists to hide their abuse of black users behind “mentioned users only” replies. #Fediverse #Mastodon #PostPrivacy (continues)

The Union Place (union.place)